kellory wrote: Sorry retch, I was speaking to Bullwinkle. i will stop by the troll-bridge and ring the bell if I need you, honest! I was referring to the problem with allowing the buying if any kind of vote with property. One of our founding fathers put it this way when referring to the problem of who to let vote. The founding fathers wrestled with these questions. . James Madison described the problem this way:

"The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property , and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property ...may be overruled by a majority without property...." They knew that a balance must be maintained in rights and in protections, for both large land owners and unlanded persons. It does not matter what the election is about. If you can buy votes with money(aka: buying acres& acres = votes) you can buy elections. Deep Pockets rule, little guys screwed. No recourse, game over. This country is founded on the concept of one man, one vote.

Kellory, you have been duped. You are getting all ginned up by B.S. and false claims not at all based in fact. You’re going on and on about something that is not real. Bullwinkle stated: “All this is a guess” You are preaching about some bogus and made up stuff Bullwinkle pulled out of his arse. Simmer down. There is no need to go all 1776 on us. Its just silly. I hope to feed Bullwinkle a bit more rope to hang himself before I post some information of interest to his B.S. “Guessing” He listed 5 very specific items as what Dr. Kroll’s recommendations will be when I know otherwise. Why do you think he wont tell us who his source is?

For someone who hangs out with politicians, I expect better reading comprehension skills. Though I should have prefaced my response with quoting what broke my silence. I will rectify that now. This quote "You know I have been thinking. Land owners should vote by county for the deer rules. For every acre of recreation land you own you get 1 vote. (if you own 40 acres, you get 40 votes) The public gets to vote to but their vote only counts for the acres of public land in the county. Some counties are very close to changing the game and letting deer age. It should be up to the landowners on the rules not the public. In northern Wis where there is a lot of public lands, the public will rule. Think about that idea" My thoughts on that idea were my response. And everything I stated could, and likely would follow as I stated it. There are no false claims, or duped info, or any of this other crap you have chosen to inject into my words. This concept runs counter to the Founding Fathers, and can not be left unchallenged. Think of range wars, where every access to water was cut off by barb wire, and every group out for his own good. This would likely have a similar struggle mounted but with garbage land as the goal, as only the number of acres matter, not the habitat, or the quality of the land, not what could be done with the land, but for the vote/power that drainage ditch, or dumpsite would bring to that group. You think hunting lands are harder to come by these days than they used to be? You think your hunting costs in fees, and gear, and food plots, could be a bit hard to handle sometimes? Try adding a land fight to the equation. And don't tell me people will act civilly instead. Because the design is flawed, because it can easily be abused, it will be. Someone WILL set off a land fight by starting the buy up of waste land for the purpose of improving their position on their views of what should be done with/ for/ about the game. Now, having clarified what I actually said, and why, I will step back from your discussion and resume my silence on your state's politics. (even as you mis-class a crossbow as a gun) ,....unless you would choose to continue to twist, slant, mock, or misinterpret my words further ?

The only real difference between a good tracker and a bad tracker is observation. All the same data is present for both. The rest is understanding what you are seeing.

From yesterday’s Milwaukee Journal. As per my discussion WI Dr. Kroll, this story also indicates the Good Doctor is not making recommendations at this point. This is why the B.S. posted by Bullwinkle is laughable and speaks to his complete lack of credibility.

----------------------------

Deer trustees report: The preliminary report from Wisconsin's white-tailed deer trustees will be released this week, according to Ed Eberle, the Department of Administration official overseeing the process. Eberle said he expected the report from James Kroll, Gary Alt and David Guynn to be submitted to Gov. Scott Walker last Friday or early this week, after which it will be made public.

The project, paid for with $150,000 from DNR coffers, is being supervised by the Department of Administration. Kroll, a university professor from Nacogdoches, Texas, was tabbed by Walker to lead an "independent and science-based review" of Wisconsin deer management. Kroll later added Alt, former head of Pennsylvania's deer management program, and Guynn, a retired Clemson University professor and director of the Quality Deer Management Association, to the review panel.

Reached by phone Friday, Kroll said the preliminary report will not include recommendations but will detail the leading issues facing white-tailed deer management in Wisconsin. The group's final report, due in June, will include recommendations for changes to the state's deer management practices, Kroll said.

As part of the review of Wisconsin's deer management program, Kroll has scheduled six meetings in April to collect public input. The meetings are being facilitated by the Wisconsin Conservation Congress.

The meeting dates and locations are:

April 16, Appleton: Appleton North High School (auditorium/theater), 7-10 p.m.

April 17, Rhinelander: Rhinelander High School (auditorium), 7-10 p.m.

Well, technically, if you're going to believe that article, you have to get by the fact that the amount that Dr. Kroll is being paid is stated wrong.

The project, paid for with $150,000 from DNR coffers, is being supervised by the Department of Administration.

According to your reasoning, that is reason enough to disregard your last post as garbage. Surely you should have qualified the misstatements prior to posting such incorrect information. How dare you just cut and paste something from the internet.